BV 813 
.67 


FT MEADE 
GenCol1 


Copy 2 



* c,^ ^f\ 

* • 

* 

. V 

c° °o 




- » 4 

7(^* ^(y 


'® • * 

j-i’ y^/rp^^ %■ (r 






O .Vv^ ; 

; >»bv^ -n^-o^ 

• *0 ^ • 


• ” ‘ A° -r . - . - X 

-kP v' 

• ^ ♦ - 




* <p 

‘ . <V 

qV 0 " o ^ ^ A 

C o < 



♦ /% ^ ^<ov//aF ♦ rv ^ 

A^ ^ • o • o ’ C:> *’ r I -I • aO 

v^ cv ^ 

^ 'P/' ' 

<. 'o,k* .cr ^c> A <. 'oA*’* A 









> •* ^ 

*• <C^ o •■ -0 r<* •* 

v^ •‘JL*"- CV A/A'* 

I* - 6 ^ 5 ^ « ^. > 1 ^ V 





V ‘.-rr. > A 

Ao, A 



V A' vA 
C '<*V 

<fi '^n 

* ^ • 

,0^ .»"-. % A 

0 • . o 

■*0 V^ .' 



• C.^ '^fv 

• ts gy •* A’'^ Vi* •* 

<> 'o,T* 

^ ^ ^ n" « 





aV^ O 

A 'o. A X 

. - A* y^,(l7Z^: %■ ^ . 

^ V - * \A <vf 


siP’ni. 



: c5 °x. 



• <1 s - 


^ , 4 . < • Q V - 0 " « ^ ' Q 


o V 


1'' •* 




.♦ qO %. 

^ ' • I “I ' A O ^ 

Oa. aV ^ 



O V^ 


* ® * ® 

V o 

• ^ ^ a<^ 4 a ^ Jfc ^W ^ 


jy 



* * 

O *' 

o y‘^/r?7py ^ .• 

-ov^ « 




<A '^ft 

■ ♦ <>? 1 

_ , _ ^ A ^ •*j^sir&^ '•^ , 

'^'t.. '“ • ‘ ‘ A % ' 

. Cr 0 ®" • ♦ ^ 



'*/ 

aO^ ,vv;l% > v^ c' A 

: : 



•* A 

■* • 

'....*0^"^ V-. 

C°^ °o 




A ^°'t- ‘^’**0^°'^ .••.'^%. *’”°’0’'*’ ••• '*= 



o A *'‘’’ * 

'^O 

- ^ \ « ' 
'^o V . 0^ 


i°-n#-. 





^ A ^ 

























• •% 




t 

0 


4 









# 


4 



i 


.1 


I 


% 


I 










‘V ^ 


» 



f 



# 


V 


4 



# 


X 


« 



' i*. 


I 


I 


. ^ 



, ■ ■ • 

V * 




THE 



BY 


Rev. E. GREENWALD, D.D., 

\ « 

PASTOR OF 

THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY, 

LANCASTER, PA. 


> i 

I » 

> j > 


PHILADELPHIA : 
LUTHERAN BOOK STORE, 

117 N. SIXTH STREET. 

1872 . 























Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, 

By E. GREENWALD, 

In the OflBice of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 


^ ' 

J 

I'ij I 0 * 

.-I'v 



SHERMAN & CO., PRINTERS, 


PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE. 


The want of a small tract, of a few pages, con¬ 
taining a close, pointed, and earnest argument for 
Infant Baptism, has long been felt, and often ex¬ 
pressed, by our Pastors and Church Members. 
This want the author has here endeavored to sup¬ 
ply. He invokes for it the blessing of the Good 
Shepherd of the one fold, who knows His own 
sheep, and calls them by name, and who gathers 
the lambs with His arm, and carries them in His 
bosom. 

E. G. 


Lancaster, Pa., 

August 28th, J872. 



c ' n . 





m ” ■:» ’ 



\ • ^ % r - * • 




i r^;-^ !t ^'>*- ' 







■ r . •V'i^ ■ 

A jl « 


■4^ --jp-; 

1 .- 


mt 


u 




■ fitJIP ^-ii-ffli. ■ ■' ' i'" u<,-' 

*•• . • •'• ‘ ‘^■., '‘'■' ,:^V ‘"’t '<tijj * . -v 

■'*'^' < ■ ' -» irf'. .-. ^ - 7 - N s ^-'- 

^ :■ V ; . * -. 


» ' ra 


I « L< 


l^ 


J'.y ■'?.4' !i*i»ji^ ■ :v . 4-'J 

- '5- ■• ■■•; 


K'M 


( 

vT'.*'' 


l»^i 




>J.\H 


4 * 


4 4^. 

V- ^ 




. ‘V' 

— ’ I 


/4 




1 ^ 



V, 


i4 <s'. _ . 44 ;; 





P"S, . *■ - - Y-afflY!- -.su^i 

i^l--^>' B' i .-at-; • 


' 1 1. 


'/r.*, v‘¥ 




THE 


BAPTISM OF CHILDKEN. 


The Lutheran Church attaches much impor¬ 
tance to Infant Baptism. The Augsburg Confes¬ 
sion, Article 9, expressly teaches “ that children 
are to be baptizeddeclares that “ by Baptism 
they are offered to Godand asserts that thereby 
they “ are received into God’s favor.” It also 
expressly “ condemns the Anabaptists who allow 
not the Baptism of children.” 

The question of the right of our children to be 
in the Church with their parents is scarcely 
inferior in importance to that of the right of the 
parents themselves to such a connection. The 
Sacrament of Baptism is known by all to be the 
divinely appointed initiatory ordinance by which 
we are initiated into the Church as members of it. 
He that is baptized is a member of the Christian 
Church, and is constituted such by the Sacrament 



6 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


of Baptism. He, on the other hand, that is not 
baptized, is not a member of the Christian Church, 
but is out of it. Now the question must be seen 
by every one, especially by every Christian parent, 
to be very important which asks. May I bring my 
children with me into the Christian Church by 
Baptism ? Does the Gospel require me to be in 
but my children to remain without ? Whilst I am 
one of the sheep of Christ’s fold may my little ones 
also be with me in the fold as the lambs of Christ’s 
flock; or must they be excluded and remain out 
of the fold until they become adults ? May I, 
like Lydia, and Cornelius, and Crispus, and Ste¬ 
phanas, and the jailer of Philippi, and others in 
the early years of the Christian Church, have my 
household baptized with me, and constitute with 
me a Christian family in the Christian Church; 
or must I go in alone, whilst they remain, like 
the unbaptized heathen, outside of it? Is the 
Church under the Gospel, unlike the Church 
under the Abrahamic dispensation, to be com¬ 
posed only of adults, and the children to be 
allowed no place ? 

But important as their formal admission to 
membership in the Christian Church by Baptism 
is, there is a question involved of still higher 
importance. It is a question of grace, of divine 
influence, of spiritual blessing, for Christian Bap- 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


7 


tism, as a means of grace, conveys grace. Not 
only the adult, but the child also, needs grace. 
The spiritual blessings conve 3 ^ed by the Sacra¬ 
ment of Baptism are as necessary for the spiritual 
welfare of the child as they are for the full-grown 
man. That man is conceived and born in sin, 
that is, that all children have original sin and are 
born with a depraved nature, is admitted by all 
evangelical Christians. All children, therefore, 
need God’s grace to regenerate their natures, and 
remove the inbred depravity and corruption of 
their hearts. They are not saved because they 
are born without sin, and are perfectly innocent 
by nature, and need no grace, as unbelievers and 
heretics teach. But they are saved by the expia¬ 
tion for sin by Jesus Christ, and the grace which 
the Gospel furnishes and applies. There is for 
them, as well as for adults, no other name under 
heaven given whereby we must be saved but that 
of Jesus. The}^ are ‘‘born of the flesh;’’ they 
must also be “ born of the Spirit.” There is grace 
for the children, and the holy Sacrament of Bap¬ 
tism in the Christian Church, like the holy Sac¬ 
rament of Circumcision in the Old Testament 
Church, is particularly designed and adapted for 
them. They need to be born again, and by Bap¬ 
tism they are “ born of water and of the Spirit,” as 
Jesus requires all to be in order to an entrance 


8 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


into his kingdom, and their Baptism is, what the 
apostle expressly declares it to be, the washing 
of regeneration.” By Baptism the liability or 
guilt of original sin is taken away; God’s grace as 
a divine seed is implanted into their souls; they 
are incorporated into Christ; brought into cove¬ 
nant with him; his name and blessing are put 
upon them; and they, thereafter, sustain to him 
the relation, as variously expressed in the Scrip¬ 
tures, of branches engrafted into the vine, of 
lambs of his flock, and of children of his family. 
By it the Holy Spirit conveys to their souls 
“those secret spiritual influences by which the 
actual regeneration of those children who die in 
infancy is effected, and which is a germ of spirit¬ 
ual life in those who are spared to incline their 
will and affections to good, and to begin and 
maintain in them the war against inward and out¬ 
ward evil, so that they may be divinely assisted, 
as reason strengthens, to make their calling and 
election sure.” 

Baptism is, therefore, of the greatest spiritual 
importance to our children. It conveys to them 
the most precious spiritual blessings. They need 
those blessings, and they should not be deprived 
of them. The question of Infant Baptism is one 
of duty pressing upon the parent, and of blessings 
to be conferred upon the children. 


BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


9 


In many localities our members live in the 
midst of those denominations who oppose the 
Baptism of children, and they need aid to enable 
them to defend themselves from attack, as well as 
to strengthen their own convictions of truth and 
duty. Such aid, it is hoped, this little manual 
will afford, which is prepared with special refer¬ 
ence to their needs. 

We propose to inquire. Whether children have 
a right under the Gospel to Church-membership 
by Baptism"^ 

The answer to this question is very clear. 
They have such right. It is plainly taught in the 
Scriptures that they must be initiated into the 
Christian Church by Baptism. Not only the 
parents, but their children likewise, must be 
members of the Saviour’s fold, and must be 
brought in through the divinely appointed door 
of initiation, which is the holy Sacrament of Bap¬ 
tism. Let the careful attention of all who read 
these pages be invited to the proof. 

1. The Church-membership of* children was 
directly instituted and positively commanded by 
the Lord himself as far back as the time of Abra¬ 
ham^ in a covenant made with him^ called expressly 
the Gospel^ or covenant of grace^ which Church- 


10 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


membership was not only not revoked by Jesus 
Christy but was confirmed and established by him. 

This proposition as thus stated covers the 
whole ground, and is as conclusive as it is possi¬ 
ble for any proposition to be. Was the covenant 
which God made with Abraham the Gospel? 
Were children admitted into the Church under 
it? Did Christ not revoke but confirm that 
covenant which was the Gospel or covenant of 
grace? If these three points are established, 
then, of course, the right of children to Church- 
membership in the Christian Church by the sac¬ 
rament appointed for that purpose is clear and 
unquestionable. Let us see what the Scriptures 
sa}^ in proof of these points. 

First, Was the covenant with Abraham the cove¬ 
nant of grace^ or ihe Gospel covenant ? 

This is evident from many passages, but we 
will only quote one, as it is so clear and direct as 
to be alone sufficient for the purpose. In the 
sixth, seventh, and eighth verses of the third 
chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 
we read: “ Even as Abraham believed God, and 
it was counted to him for righteousness. Know 
ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same 
are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, 
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
through faith, preached before the Gospel unto 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


11 


Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed. So then they which are of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham.” Here it is not 
only asserted that Abraham was a model believer; 
that he was the father of all believers; that all 
believers are children of Abraham; that all be¬ 
lievers, whether Jews or Gentiles, have the same 
blessings in the faithful Abraham; but it is ex¬ 
pressly said that that which was preached to him 
was the Gospel; that the covenant made with 
him was the Gospel covenant; that his faith 
under that covenant was evangelical or Gospel 
faith; and that the blessings that descended to 
both Jews and Gentiles were based upon the 
promises and guarantees of that covenant made 
with Abraham. All this is so plainly stated that 
the most simple-minded reader perceives it. The 
first point is therefore proved beyond debate. 
The covenant with Abraham was the Gospel 
covenant, or covenant of grace. It was the Gos¬ 
pel that was preached to Abraham, and that was 
embodied in the covenant made with him. It 
stipulated that from Abraham the Saviour would 
descend; that in his seed all nations would be 
blessed; that his faith, and the faith of his de¬ 
scendants, under that covenant was evangelical, 
saving faith in a Redeemer that was to come; and 
that the blessings and privileges which all, whether 


12 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


Jews or Gentiles, would enjoy, would come to them 
on the ground of the gracious promises made in 
this covenant with Abraham. This is now clear, 
and needs no further discussion. 

The second question is. Were children admitted 
under this covenant^ and into connection with it^ 
hy express stipulation^ and by a formal and solemn 
rite^ hy which their Church relation to it was rec¬ 
ognized and consummated ? 

The answer to this queston must be in the 
affirmative. They were so admitted, were admit¬ 
ted by a formal Church ordinance, which for 
thousands of years was invariably practiced, and 
never disputed. For proof we refer to Genesis, 
seventeenth chapter, and from the ninth to the 
fourteenth verse; we read: “ And God said unto 
Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, 
thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. 
This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between 
me and you, and thy seed after thee. Every man- 
child among you shall be circumcised. And ye 
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it 
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and 
you. He that is eight days old shall be circum¬ 
cised arpong you, every man-child in your genera¬ 
tions, he that is born in the house, or bought with 
money of any stranger which is not of th}^ seed. 
He that is born in thy house, and he that is 


BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


13 


bought with thy money, must needs be circum¬ 
cised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for 
an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised 
man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not cir¬ 
cumcised, that soul shall be cut olf from his 
people; he hath broken my covenant.” These 
words are very plain, and to the point. There is 
no misunderstanding them. Under this covenant 
with Abraham, which as we have seen is expressly 
called by St. Paul “the Gospel,” children at 
eight days old were expressly admitted, and not 
only admitted, but commanded on pain of being 
cut oflf from God’s people if not thus admitted, 
and admitted too by a formal, solemn rite, or 
Church ordinance. The Church-membership of 
children was thus constituted by a positive law or 
divine enactment. Directl}", positively, in express 
words, the Church-membership of children was 
instituted and ordained, and from that time for¬ 
ward nothing else was known or practiced in this 
respect by the Church of the true and living God. 
The history of that people, who until the time of 
Christ constituted the only true Church of God, 
is a uniform testimony to the fldelity with which 
this enactment of the Lord was observed and 
practiced. 'No one doubts it. It is known and 
read of all men. Nothing else, in this respect, 
was known or thought of, but their male children 


14 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


were uniformly on the eighth day consecrated to 
God by the rite or sacrament of circumcision. 

It does not diminish in the smallest degree the 
force of this fact, that only a part of their chil¬ 
dren, the males, were the subjects of the rite. 
However we may account for the fact that the 
males onlj^ were the subjects of the rite, the fact 
that all the male children were circumcised on 
the eighth day establishes the principle of infant 
membership of the Church as clearly as if there 
were no exceptions. It proves beyond dispute 
that a child eight days old was capable of being 
the subject of a holy, divine ordinance, and, in 
consequence thereof, a member of the Church of 
God. This cannot be disputed. And if this is 
admitted, our second point is proved beyond all 
debate. 

The third question is. Did Christ come to con¬ 
firm and establish the covenant of grace^ or the 
Gospel covenant^ made with Abraham^ with all its 
hopes., and blessings, and privileges; or did he 
come to abrogate it ? 

We would suppose that to ask this question 
was to answer it. No one can suppose that Christ 
came to abrogate the Gospel, to annul the cove¬ 
nant of grace. This would be strange indeed. 
He came, of course, to establish the Gospel, to 
confirm all the promises that had been made con- 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


15 


cerning his gracious purposes of mercy to the 
world that had been announced for ages before 
his birth, and to fulfil all the types, and sj^mbols, 
and covenants that had existed, and by which the 
blessings of his coming were guaranteed to man¬ 
kind. This would seem to be so plain from the 
general tenor of the New Testament scriptures, as 
not to require the citation of particular passages. 
But let us see what is expressly said by St. Paul 
in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Gala¬ 
tians, and at the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seven¬ 
teenth verses; we read : “ Brethren, I speak after 
the manner of men, though it be but a man’s 
covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannul- 
leth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his 
seed were the promises made. He saith not. And 
to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy 
seed, which is Christ. And this I say, therefore. 
That the covenant that was confirmed before of 
God, in Christ, the law which was four hundred 
and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect.” Here 
it is positively stated that the covenant, that was 
long before made with Abraham by the Almighty 
God, “ was confirmed in Christ.” It is declared 
that the seed mentioned in that covenant, as the 
seed of Abraham in which all nations should be 
blessed, was Christ himself, who would descend 


16 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


from Abraham by genealogical lineage, and that 
all the blessings of grace and salvation which that 
covenant promised were those which Jesus by his 
redemption secured for the world. Nothing that 
occurred afterwards could annul this covenant. 
The law of Moses as a covenant of works, which 
was done away in Christ, and which had been 
given four hundred and thirty years after the cove¬ 
nant had been made with Abraham, could not, and 
did not, annul that previous covenant. It had 
been made by God, and was confirmed in Christ, 
and therefore stands sure as an everlasting cove¬ 
nant that never would be abrogated. All this is 
most plainly and positively declared in these 
verses. It is plain too that they could do nothing 
less. If the covenant with Abraham was the 
Gospel, Christ of course came to confirm it. He 
did not annul the Gospel. To make known, to 
establish, to confirm the Gospel in all its cove¬ 
nanted privileges and blessings was, necessarily, 
the object of his coming. 

Have we not now clearly established our propo¬ 
sition, namely, that the Church-membership of 
children was directly instituted and positively 
commanded by God. himself, as far back as the 
time of Abraham, in a solemn covenant made with 
him, called the Gospel or covenant of grace, which 
Church-membership was not only not revoked. 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN, 


17 


but was positively confirmed and established by 
Jesus Christ? The three chief points in it we 
have clearly proved. The covenant was the Gos¬ 
pel; children were expressly admitted into it; 
and Christ came not to abrogate, but to confirm 
it. Is not, therefore, infant membership of the 
Church in all its full, original force ? As mem¬ 
bership under the covenant is necessaril 3 ^, as it 
was declared at its original institution to be, an 
essential part of the covenant itself (see Genesis 
11:10), the confirmation of the covenant of course 
included the confirmation of its membership. If 
its membership had been annulled the covenant 
would not have been confirmed. If Christ has 
changed the external form of the two great sacra¬ 
ments of the Old Testament Church, viz.. Circum¬ 
cision and the Passover, into the Sacraments oi 
Bai^tism and the Lord’s Supper, for the purpose 
of adapting them to the more general and wide¬ 
spread condition of the Christian Church among 
the Gentile world, still all their essential charac¬ 
teristics are the same, and remain unchanged, 
and the same persons that were entitled to the 
former are also entitled to the latter. There is 
no question that the right and divine authority 
of infant membership in the Church remain un¬ 
changed. It is in as full force as it ever was. 
No man, or set of men, dare abrogate or annul 
2 


18 


BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


what Christ has positively established and con¬ 
firmed. 

“ Since the children of believers were put into 
the Church hy positive law of Godf says a vigor¬ 
ous writer, “they can be put out only by positive 
law of Cod. Inferences will not answer the pur¬ 
pose. You cannot infer men out of their politi¬ 
cal rights. Men do not reason so infallibly that 
we may safely trust our rights and privileges to 
their deductions and inferences. I enjoy the 
rights of a citizen of these United States by the 
plain letter of the Constitution. If you wish to 
deprive me of these rights you must prove that 
the Constitution has been so altered as to exclude 
me. You must, in order to deprive me of my 
political^ rights, find law as positive, and of as 
high authority, as that which originally conferred 
them. The principle holds equally good in 
ecclesiastical matters. If I prove that Cod put 
certain persons into his Church you cannot ex¬ 
clude them unless you can point to the law au¬ 
thorizing you to do so. Cod did put the children 
of believers into his Church by clear and positive 
enactment, and you cannot exclude them except 
by an enactment equally as clear and positive.”* 
But where is such a law excluding them ? We 


* Dr. N. L. Pvice. 



BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


19 


have a law putting children into the Church, but 
where is there a law that puts them out ? So far 
from there being such a law, there is not the re¬ 
motest intimation of any design or purpose to 
exclude them from the Church, but every intima¬ 
tion of a design and purpose to retain them there. 
This we shall now proceed to show. Having 
proved our first point, viz., that children are in¬ 
cluded in the covenant, we remark: 

2. Children are included in the promise con¬ 
nected with that covenant. 

We have seen that children are directly, and 
by special enactment included in the Abrahamic 
covenant. All divine covenants have promises 
connected with them, and are enacted for the 
purpose of giving to men the assurance that the 
blessings promised will be bestowed. Now the 
“ promise ” given in this covenant with Abraham 
is expressl}^ cited as the ground or warrant for 
the Baptism of both adults and children, under 
the Christian dispensation. Hear the apostle 
Peter on the day of Pentecost, as recorded Acts 
2 : 38, 39 : “Then Peter said unto them. Repent, 
and be baptized every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the 
promise is unto you and to your children.” Here 


20 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


the apostle Peter in urging upon the Jewish 
parents to whom he was speaking, the duty of re¬ 
ceiving Christian Baptism, expressly informed 
them that the promises of the covenant, which 
authorized their Baptism, included their children 
as well as themselves. The parents who heard 
him must he baptized, and thus be brought into 
the New Testament or Gospel Church, for the 
promises of the covenant of grace with Abraham 
included them, and in order to enjoy the blessings 
promised, their Baptism was necessary. But their 
children must also be baptized and brought in, for 
the covenant, and the promised blessings of the 
covenant, included not them only, but their chil¬ 
dren also. Just as before Christ’s coming, parents 
and children were brought into the Church of 
God by the ordinance appointed for that purpose, 
so too, now that Christ has come, parents and 
their children must be brought into the renovated 
Church of God under another dispensation, by 
the sacrament ordained for that object. Circum¬ 
cision under the old, and Baptism under the new 
dispensation stand at the threshold of their re¬ 
spective dispensations as the divinely appointed 
mode of initiation, and through the latter as 
through the former, children as well as their 
parents enter into the covenant, and are admitted 
to the participation of the blessings which it 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


21 


stipulates. Can anything be plainer than this 
passage, and the right of children to Church- 
membership which it guarantees ? Why did Peter 
mention the children of the Jewish parents before 
him at all in connection with their Baptism, if he 
intended that they should be excluded ? On the 
contrary, he most positively requires that because 
the promise was unto the children, as well as to 
their parents, they must be baptized as well as 
their parents. The right of both to Baptism is 
placed on the same basis, and we have no more 
right to exclude the children than we have to ex¬ 
clude the parents. “ Bepent and be baptized 
every one of you, for the promise is unto you and 
to your children.” You and your children may 
be baptized and brought into the New Testament 
Church, for the promise is both to you and to 
them. To you, but not to you alone, to your 
children also. If we may exclude the one, we may 
exclude the other likewise, for the same promise 
of the covenant is the basis on which the Baptism 
of both alike rests. But because we have no right 
to exclude the one, we have no right to exclude 
the other. With such a positive declaration of a 
divinely inspired apostle as this before him, who 
would venture to exclude a child from holy Bap¬ 
tism ? 


22 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


3. Children are included in Christ’s invitation^ 
and declared to he fit subjects for the New Testa¬ 
ment Church or kingdom. 

In Mark 10 :13-16 we read, “And they brought 
young children to him, that he should touch them ; 
and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, 
and said unto them. Suffer the little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such 
is the kingdom of God.” The term “ kingdom of 
God ” is used almost invariably in the New Tes¬ 
tament, to mean the Church under the Gospel dis¬ 
pensation ; the reign of God amongst men in the 
Church. In these verses, Christ explicitly asserts 
that young children are qualified to enter into, 
and compose his kingdom, i. e., his Church. “ Of 
such is the kingdom of God,” ^. e., the Christian 
Church. Now the only door of entrance into the 
Church or kingdom of Christ is Baptism. In 
proof, we cite John 3:3, which says, “ Except a 
man be born of water, and of the Holy Ghost, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” To be 
born of water is to be baptized ; wdiosoever, there¬ 
fore, is not baptized is not in the Church or king¬ 
dom of Christ, but is out of it, just as he that 
was not circumcised was not a member of the 
Church of God under the Jewish dispensation. 
But Christ says, “ Suffer the little children to 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


23 


come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such 
is the kingdom of God.” When we put these 
three things together, the definition of the king¬ 
dom as meaning the Christian Church, the rela¬ 
tion of Baptism to it as the divinel}^ ordained 
mode of initiation, and this positive declaration 
of Christ, that “of such is the kingdom,” I 
scarcely know how he could have more plainly 
asserted the admissibility of little children to holy 
Baptism. If Jesus says his “kingdom” is con¬ 
stituted “of such,” who will dare to contradict 
him ? If he says “ suffer them to come to me,” 
who will presume to say they shall not ? If he 
was “ much displeased ” with his disciples for 
rebuking the mothers that brought them, who has / 
not reason very much to fear the displeasure of 
the Lord, who would place himself between a 
little child and Christ, and discourage or prevent 
its introduction into his kingdom by Baptism ? 
Who would not tremble to take upon himself such 
a dreadful responsibility ? 

4. Children are included in Christ’s original 
command commissioning and authorizing his min¬ 
isters to administer the Sacrament of Baptism. 

In Matthew 28:19, 20, we have Christ’s parting 
command to his disciples, directing them how to 
proceed in the work of extending his Church 


24 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


among men. He says, “ Go ye and teach ” (or 
as is admitted by all biblical scholars on all sides 
of this question as a more correct translation), 
“ Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptiz- 
ins: them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This passage con¬ 
tains the Great Commission, on the authority of 
which we, as ministers of the Gospel, baptize at 
all. If we had not this commission we would 
have no authority either to preach or to baptize. It 
is our warrant or letter of instructions from the 
Lord himself, and by it our action must be regu¬ 
lated. It teaches how we must baptize, viz., “ in 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Hol}^ Ghost,” without which words used in the 
administration of the ordinance, we believe that 
the application of water to the subject would not 
be Baptism. It likewise teaches whom we must 
baptize, viz., “ all nations.” The term “ all na¬ 
tions ” is comprehensive, and includes all persons 
who are enumerated as belonging to and compos¬ 
ing a nation. It does not specify in so many 
different words, either men, women or children, 
but it uses a single term that plainly includes them 
all. What does the term “ all nations ” mean ? 
We may be aided in ascertaining its meaning by 
reference to a familiar illustration. In the year 
1870, the census of our country was taken. The 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


25 


intention was to ascertain who constitute the 
“ nation.’’ The marshals or census takers passed 
through every district, visited every family, and 
took dowm and counted the name of every man, 
woman, and child that was born before, and living 
at, twelve o’clock on the first day of June, 18t0. 
It mattered not if a child was but one hour old, 
it was counted as a part of our nation, as well as 
the man of threescore j^ears and ten, and the entire 
sum of men, women, and children thus enumerated, 
amounting to many millions, constitute the nation. 
When we ask who compose this nation ? we answer 
the men, women, and children enumerated as be¬ 
longing to it. And the same answer must be 
given to the question, who constitute any other 
nation ? Now the command requires us to bap¬ 
tize “ all nations,” meaning, of course, all that 
belong to the nations, and that constitute the na¬ 
tions. We have seen that men, women, and chil¬ 
dren constitute the nations; men, women, and 
children are, therefore, required by this command 
to b'e baptized. Is not this plain ? I have no 
authority to add to, nor have I any right to take 
away from, the plain import of the command of 
my Master. It is my commission, and I must 
construe it correctly. By it mj^ action as a min¬ 
ister of the Gospel must be regulated. It plainly 
authorizes me to baptize men, women, and chil- 


26 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


dren. Children as well as adults are plainly in¬ 
cluded in my commission. I must comply strictly 
with its meaning. I dare not exclude what this 
command does not exclude. If I refused to bap¬ 
tize children, I would feel that I was breaking 
Christ’s parting command, and incurring the 
serious displeasure of my Lord. He has given 
not the least intimation that they are to be ex¬ 
cepted from the subjects of this command. On 
the contrar}^, we have already seen how strong, 
in addition to the import of the command itself, 
are the reasons for the conviction that they must 
be included. I cannot doubt, therefore, that it is 
his will that children, as well as men and women, 
must be baptized. I can come to no other con¬ 
clusion. I cannot, therefore, do otherwise. I 
may not refuse to baptize children. If I refused, 
I would be setting up my will in opposition to the 
will of him who has sent me to act in his name, 
and of such presumption and disobedience I dare 
not be guilty. 

5. Children are the lambs of Christ's flock^ as 
their parents are the sheep of his fold^ and, there¬ 
fore, their relation both to the Shepherd and to the 
flock forbids that they should be excluded from 
the fold. 

In John 10 : 16 Jesus says, ‘‘Other sheep I 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


27 


have which are not of this fold, them also I must 
bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there 
shall be one fold and one shepherd.” The Cliurch 
is here called a “fold,” and Christ the Head of 
the Church the “ shepherd.” He refers especially 
to the calling of the Gentiles. We are born by 
nature not in the fold, but out of it, for we are 
born in a state of sin, and this verse says that we 
are “ not of the fold,” but that he must “ bring ” 
us before we can become so. Now the door of 
entrance into his fold, ^. e., the Christian Church, 
is, as has already been shown, the holy Sacrament 
of Baptism. Will Christ, therefore, admit the 
sheep into his fold by the door which he has 
opened, and will he shut out the little lambs of 
the flock? Have we any fears that he will do 
this, especially as he is called the “good shep¬ 
herd,” and will “ gather the lambs with his arms 
and carry them in his bosom ?” Does a farmer, 
an earthly shepherd, admit to the warm shelter of 
his fold, the sheep, and exclude the tender lambs 
to brave the pitiless peltings of the wintry storm 
without ? Do the sheep only need the benefit of 
the fold, and do the lambs not need it ? Does an 
earthly farmer or shepherd stand at the door of 
his fold as the sheep and lambs come up to enter, 
and does he carefully let in the sheep and keep 


28 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


out the lambs? Would he not be a cruel shep¬ 
herd that would do so ? 

6. Children were included in the host of the 
Israelites as they were baptized unto Closes in their 
passage through the Red Sea^ and which is declared 
to he an example or type of Christian Baptism, 

In 1 Cor. 10:1, 2, 6, we read, “Moreover, 
brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, 
now that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea, and were all bap¬ 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. . . . 
Now these were our examples.’’ Here the Bap¬ 
tism of the children of Israel, as they passed on 
dry ground through the miraculously opened 
channel of the Red Sea, by the waters of the 
cloud under which they walked being, as David 
says in the seventy-seventh Psalm, “ poured out,” 
or rained in a sprinkling mist upon them, is said 
to be an example or type of Christian Baptism. 
It is an example both as to the subjects and the 
mode. The mode, as we have noticed, was by the 
cloud sprinkling its waters upon them. As to 
the subjects, it is expressly stated that they '•'‘were 
all baptized.^^ Now who composed that company? 
Let us see. When we turn to the history of the 
event, recorded in Exodus 12 : 31, we find the 
answer to the question. We there read, “And 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


29 


the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to 
Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot 
that were men, besides children.” Here it is ex¬ 
pressly stated that there were children in that 
company. If then, as Paul says, they “ were all 
baptized,” were not those children baptized also ? 
Those who reject Infant Baptism frequently say, 
“ Show us an instance in the Scriptures where 
children were baptized and we will give up our 
objections, and consent to their Baptism.” Now 
here we have an instance of the Baptism of chil¬ 
dren in language almost as plain as it can be re¬ 
corded. With such a case before us, expressly 
declared to be a type or example of Christian 
Baptism, can an}^ one who believes the Bible still 
continue to reject the Baptism of children ? 

7. Children were included in the numerous 
family or household Baptisms that are recorded in 
the Scriptures. 

Let us first examine the case of the jailer at 
Philippi, and his family, recorded in the sixteenth 
chapter of the Acts. In the thirty-first verse 
Paul and Silas said to him, “ Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house ;” and then in the thirty-third verse we are 
told that “ he was baptized, he and all his, straight¬ 
way.” “ He and all his ” what ? Of course, he 


30 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


and all his ‘‘ house.’’ Since it was said, verse 31, 
that he and all his “ house ” would be “ saved,” 
it is plain, therefore, that the meaning is, he and 
all his house were baptized. Now what was his 
“house” that was baptized? Not the building 
in which he lived, but his household, his family; 
he, his wife, his children. Every plain reader of 
the Scriptures will understand the expression, 
“ he and all his house were baptized,” to mean he 
and all his children.^ But to put the matter be¬ 
yond all dispute, we will ascertain what is the 
meaning of the word “ house,” as used in this 
connection in the Scriptures, for the Scriptures 
are their own best interpreter. For this purpose 
let us turn to 1 Timothy 3 : 4, where we find the 
following passage: “ A bishop must be blameless, 
. . . one that ruleth well his own house, having 
his children in subjection with all gravity.” Here 
the word “ house ” is expressly explained by the 
word “ children.” The man’s “ house ” consisted 
of his “children,” and especially young children 
whom their parent was required to keep in “ sub¬ 
jection.” This settles the meaning of the word 
“house.” Then the conclusion is irresistible, 
that when it is said.“ the jailer and all his house 
were baptized,” it means the jailer and all his 
“ children.” 

The Scriptures contain a number of other 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


31 


instances of family or household Baptisms. In 
Acts 16 : 14, 15, it is said that “ Lydia was bap¬ 
tized, and her household.” In 1 Cor. 1 : 16, Paul 
informs us that he “baptized the household of 
Stephanas.” In the tenth chapter of the Acts, 
we are told of the Baptism of Cornelius and his 
house ; and in the eighteenth chapter of the Acts, 
of the Baptism of Crispus and his house. Here, 
including the family of the jailer, we have not 
less than five direct instances of the Baptism of 
families. The fact is stated without any qualifi¬ 
cation. The head of the family is first mentioned, 
and then it is stated that his household, as well 
as himself, were baptized. The idea, of course, 
is that he and his whole family were baptized ; he, 
his wife, and their children; or in the case of 
Lydia, the mother and her children. This is the 
plain, common-sense meaning of the passages, 
such as any plain man would ascribe to the same 
expressions if found in any other connection. 
And the plain meaning is the correct one. The 
“ house,” the “ household ” are the “ children.” 
A man’s “house” or “household” are the man’s 
wife and children. This requires no learned 
exegesis to understand. Any plain, unlettered 
person can understand it as well. To find young 
children in families is the rule ; the contrary is the 
exception. It would seem very strange, indeed, 


32 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


if these five instances recorded in the Scriptures 
of the Baptism of whole families, happened to be 
all exceptions. Surely it is not asking too much 
to require those who oppose Infant Baptism to 
prove that all these instances were exceptions to 
one of the commonest rules in the world ! Are 
those persons following apostolic example who 
baptize the heads of families, and by denying 
Baptism to their children, refuse to baptize their 
household ? Could those ministers describe their 
Baptisms in the same language of the apostles as 
having baptized parents and all their households, 
who never baptize their households at all ? Would 
not their reports, if presented in the language of 
the apostles, need a good deal of explanation 
before the reader would understand that by the 
word “ household,” they really do not mean what 
the word really means, and what all other persons 
understand it to mean ! • 

8. Children are included in the uniform 'prac¬ 
tice of the universal Christian Church from the 
time of the apostles to the present time in the ad¬ 
ministration of Baptism. 

Infant Baptism is not of j^esterday. It can be 
traced back as the general practice of the Christian 
Church from the present time through all inter¬ 
vening centuries, until we reach the time of the 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


33 


apostles. There never was a time in the history 
of the Christian Church when Infant Baptism 
was not generally practiced. Let me cite a few 
proofs. We need not quote testimony to prove 
that such has been the practice for three hundred 
years past, or for a thousand years past. Every 
reader of Church history knows that it was prac¬ 
ticed by Luther, and in every period of the 
Lutheran Church since. Every one too that 
knows from history, what the practice of the 
Church has been for a thousand 3 "ears or for 
fifteen hundred 3 "ears past, knows that Infant 
Baptism was the general practice. But whilst 
this is admitted by every one competent to ex¬ 
press an opinion on the subject, it may, perhaps, be 
denied that the Christian Church in the very first 
centuries after the time of the apostles, practiced 
Infant Baptism. Let us see. We will begin to 
call our witnesses from the middle of the fourth 
century, and ascend from that point up to the 
time of the apostles. 

We will first call Pelagius^ born about the mid¬ 
dle of the fourth century. He declares, in an 
extract carefully translated from his writings, “ I 
have never heard of even an 3 " impious heretics 
who asserted that infants ought not to be bap¬ 
tized.” Again he asks, “ Who can be so impious 
as to hinder the Baptism of infants ?” This is 
3 


34 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


his testimony. It is very plain and conclusive. 
Pelagius is here a witness of high authority. He 
was born in Britain, and travelled through France, 
Italy, Africa proper, and Egypt, to Jerusalem. 
Had Infant Baptism been rejected in his time (he 
was born about the year 330 after Christ), it 
is impossible that he should not have heard of it. 
He was also an inquisitive and learned man, and 
must therefore have been well informed concern¬ 
ing the practice of the Churches in preceding 
periods. At the same time the doctrine of Infant 
Baptism was cited by Augustine, his great oppo¬ 
nent, as furnishing an objection against some of 
the opinions which Pelagius held, in such a man¬ 
ner that Pelagius knew not how to defend himself, 
and this accounts for the form and tone of the 
extract which I have just quoted. And yet his 
testimony to the universal practice of Infant Bap¬ 
tism is direct and positive. 

We will next call Augustine^ the contemporary 
and great opponent of Pelagius. He says, and 
his testimony is correctly translated, “ The whole 
Church practices Infant Baptism. It was not 
instituted b}^ councils, but was always in use.” 
He also says that he did not remember ever to 
have read of any person, whether Catholic or 
heretic, who maintained that Baptism ought to be 
denied to infants. “This,” he says, “the Church 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


35 


has always maintained.” This is plain and con¬ 
clusive testimony from one of the most learned 
and distinguished divines of the ancient Church. 
He lived little more than three hundred years 
after the time of the apostles. Living so near, and 
being so eminent for learning and piety, did he 
not know ? Assuredly. 

Let us go up and approach still nearer to the 
time of the apostles. Cyprian was a learned 
Church father, born about the year 200, and was 
bishop of the renowned city of Carthage. Fidus, 
a bishop in Africa, had some difficulty in his mind 
about the propriety of baptizing children before 
they were eight days old. Believing that Bap¬ 
tism was instituted in the place of Circumcision, 
just as the Lord’s Supper was in the place of the 
Passover, and as circumcision was never adminis¬ 
tered until the eighth day, he was uncertain as 
to the course to be pursued when, on account of 
sickness or for other reasons, he was called upon 
to baptize a child under eight days old. When 
the child was once eight days old he had no diffi¬ 
culty, for Infant Baptism was universally prac¬ 
ticed ; the only difficulty was when the child was 
not yet eight days old. Having confidence in the 
learning and judgment of Cyprian, he applied to 
him for advice. Let it be well borne in mind that 
the question was not whether infants should be 


36 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


baptized at all, for when they were once eight 
days old he had no difficulty on the subject. 
The question was, May they be baptized before 
the eighth day ? Cyprian laid the question before 
the council that met at Carthage in the year 254. 
There were sixty-six bishops present at the coun¬ 
cil over which Cyprian presided. After the ad¬ 
journment of the council Cyprian forwarded to 
Fidus an official account of the decision had upon 
the question. It is preserved in the Epistles of 
Cyprian, from which the following extract is a 
translation: 

‘‘ Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who were 
present in the council, sixty-six in number, to 
Fidus our brother, greeting: As to the case of 
infants, whereas you judge that they must not be 
baptized within two or three days after they are 
born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be 
observed, that no one should be baptized and 
sanctified before the eighth day after he is born ; 
we were all in the council of a veiy diflE’erent 
opinion. As to what you thought proper to be 
done, no one was of your mind, but we all rather 
judged that the mercy and grace of God [by Bap¬ 
tism], is to be denied to no human being that is 
born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our 
opinion in the council, that we ought not to hinder 
any person from Baptism and the grace of God, 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


37 


who is merciful and kind to us all. And this rule, 
as it holds for all, we think more especially to be 
observed in reference to infants, even to those 
newly born.” 

No one who reads this Epistle of Cyprian can 
doubt whether Infant Baptism was generally prac¬ 
ticed in the Church in the year A.D. 254, about 
one hundred and fifty years after the death of St. 
John, the last of the apostles. Nothing can be 
more certain. And so greatly was the Church 
interested in the Baptism of the children, that 
when there was danger of their not living until 
the eighth day, they were baptized before they 
were eight days old. 

But let us go up still further. Origen was born 
about the year 184, only about eighty-four years 
after the death of St. John. He was a man of 
more information than any one of his time. He 
wrote so largely upon the Scriptures, and quoted 
them so often, that it has been well said, that if 
the New Testament was lost, it could all be re¬ 
covered again from the works of Origen. He is 
in every respect a competent witness. Let us 
hear him. In his eighth Homily on Leviticus, 
twelfth chapter, when arguing against those who 
deny that infants have original sin, he says: “Ac¬ 
cording to the usage of the Church, Baptism is 
given even to infants, when if there were nothing 


38 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


in infants which needed forgiveness and mere}', the 
grace of Baptism would not seem to be necessary.” 
Again, in his Homilj^ on Luke, fourteenth chap¬ 
ter, he says: “ Infants are baptized for the remis¬ 
sion of sins. Of what sins ? Or when have they 
sinned ? Or can there be any reason for the laver 
in their case, unless it be according to the sense 
which we have mentioned above, viz., that no one 
is free from pollution though he has lived but one 
day upon earth? And because by Baptism native 
pollution is taken away, therefore infants are bap¬ 
tized.” Again, in his Comment on Bomans, he 
says: “ For this cause it was that the Church 
received an order from the apostles to give Bap¬ 
tism to infants.” 

This testimony is positive. There is no getting 
round it. It cannot be disputed. The fact of 
the prevalence of the practice of Infant Baptism 
in his time, and before, is distinctly attested, and 
its origin positively ascribed to the apostles. 
And living at that early age, within one step of 
the apostles, when many were still living who had 
seen or heard St. John, the last surviving apostle, 
had he not every opportunity of knowing what 
the apostolic practice was ? If we doubt such a 
witness as this, and refuse to believe such direct 
and positive testimony to the fact of the practice 
of Infant Baptism in his time, whose testimony 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


39 


can we believe on any subject whatever? What 
fact of any past age can we receive if we must 
reject this? But no, we dare not refuse to believe 
such testimony as this. All the value of history, 
all the business of life, would be overthrown, and 
universal skepticism prevail in the world, if we 
must reject the testimony of such a witness as 
this, to the truth of a fact so plain as that whereof 
he affirms. 

We might rest here, but we can go still higher. 
Irendeus^ born about the year 91, a disciple of 
Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John, says: 
‘‘Christ came to save all persons, who by him are 
born again unto God, infants and little ones, and 
children, and youths, and elder persons.” By 
being “born again,” Irenseus means being bap¬ 
tized, as he himself elsewhere explains, and in 
accordance with the then generally received doc¬ 
trine of baptismal regeneration. This testimony 
brings us quite up to the time of St. John. It 
renders the fact certain that at that time “infants, 
and little ones, and children,” were baptized. 

We will cite one more witness. Justin Martyr 
was born before Irenseus, and he remarks, when 
speaking of those who were then members of the 
Christian Church, “ a part of them were sixty or 
seventy years old, who were made disciples to 
Christ from their infancy.” He refers of course 


40 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


to the passage, Matthew 28:19, “ Go ye into all 
the world and make disciples of all nations, bap¬ 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” By being made 
disciples to Christ from their infancy he plainly 
means being baptized. They were made disciples 
in their infancy, by being baptized in their infancy. 
There never was, and there is not now, any other 
mode of making persons disciples of Christ in 
their infancy but by their Baptism. This was in 
accordance with the language habitually used at 
that time, and with the language of Jesus himself. 
It proves beyond a doubt, that in the time of 
Justin Martyr, there were then living persons who 
had been baptized in their infancy, perhaps by 
the apostles themselves. 

Here we rest our evidence. The historical 
argument in favor of Infant Baptism is equally as 
positive as the scriptural argument. Both together 
render it absolutely certain. The chain of testi¬ 
mony to its apostolic origin is so strong that it 
cannot be broken. What we do now was done 
from the beginning. We are practicing what was 
practiced by the apostles and by the first Chris¬ 
tians, and by the universal Church of Christ. In 
baptizing our children we are doing what the 
Church of Christ has always done. 

What, now, are some of the conclusions which 


BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


41 


we should take with us from the discussion of 
this subject? 

1. All persons who were baptized in their in¬ 
fancy may he satisfied with their Baptism. They 
have been truly and properly baptized. It is 
scriptural and right. It is sufficient. You need 
not have a moment’s doubt about its validity. 
No other Baptism could be more complete than 
your Baptism. Baptism in adult years is not on 
any account to be preferred. You have been 
baptized in accordance with the teaching of 
Christ and the apostles, and with the general 
practice of the Christian Church from the begin¬ 
ning, and in all ages. You may rest content, and 
entertain not a moment’s uneasiness about the 
correctness and sufficiency of your Baptism. 

Particularly do not by any persuasion of others 
suffer yourselves to be rebaptized, and thereby 
renounce the true faith of God’s word, and disown 
the pious and holy act of your parents who pre¬ 
sented you for Baptism. Perhaps the father’s or 
mother’s arm that held you as a babe for the 
water of Baptism is lying mouldering in the grave. 
Do not dishonor their piet}^ and love, and bring 
sin and shame on yourselves by spurning their 
holy act, and treating the covenant they entered 
into for you with contempt. Your parents’ bless- 


42 


BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


ing, as well as the blessing of Grod, is on you now. 
Beware, lest in casting it from j^ou, you would 
once give worlds, if you had them, to bring that 
blessing back again. 

2. It is tTiQ duty of all parents to present their 
children for holy Baptism. They owe it to them¬ 
selves, and they owe it to them. Let them not 
withhold their dear children from the grace that 
is conveyed from God through this holy means of 
grace. We urge the Baptism of children upon 
all Christian parents as a solemn duty. Some 
persons, who do not absolutely reject it, simply 
tolerate it. They say it does no good, but they 
also believe it does no harm, and therefore they 
suffer it to be done. But they are sadly in error. 
Infant Baptism must be practiced on account of 
its positive benefits. No true Christian parent 
that loves his child will withhold it from the bless¬ 
ings of holy Baptism. He will not through any 
fault of his suffer his child to die unbaptized. 
We do not say that the child is lost that, through 
no fault of its own, dies without Baptism. The 
old Lutheran maxim tells us, ‘‘It is not the guilt¬ 
less want, but the guilty neglect, of Baptism that 
condemns.” Those persons utter that which is- 
not true when they charge Lutheran pastors with 
teaching that children that die unbaptized are 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


43 


lost. They teach no such thing. But they do, 
nevertheless, urge very strongly upon parents not 
to suffer, through any fault of theirs, their child, 
or children, to die unbaptized. Whatever may be 
the future condition of a child that dies without 
the grace conferred through Baptism, the parent 
will be held to answer for his wilful neglect. And 
we may even go farther and say, that the future 
happiness of the child may depend to a far greater 
extent than we know upon the fact of its being 
“ received into God’s favor ” by the holy Sacra¬ 
ment of Baptism. If God requires the Baptism 
of children, as we know he does from what has 
been said in these pages, we may be sure he has 
good and weighty reasons for it. It will be better 
for all to yield to what he requires, without inter¬ 
posing their imperfect reasons in opposition to 
God’s reasons, and because they can see no use 
in it conclude, notwithstanding God’s express 
word, that there is no use in it. There may be 
much more involved than we can understand, and 
it is always safest and best for us to submit our 
limited understanding to God’s infinite mind, and 
not risk our happiness, and the happiness of our 
children, by choosing our own way rather than 
his. 

We would lay upon the conscience of every 
parent the following solemn considerations: 


44 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


1. Christ’s command includes children. (Matt. 
28:19.) “All nations” must be baptized; chil¬ 
dren compose a large part of all nations. They 
must, therefore, be baptized. Christ meant that 
they should be baptized. TJnbaptized children 
have not been aided to obey this command. It 
is disobeyed because their parents have refused 
to bring them for Baptism. The children must 
obey the command through their parents. The 
parents must believe, and obey for their children. 
They do this in a thousand earthly things, and 
they do it every day in the way of food and medi¬ 
cine, and education, and care. And they must 
also believe and act for their children in religious 
things. They daily do it in teaching them, and 
praying for them, and exerting their influence 
upon them to rear them free from error and sin. 
Abraham believed and acted for his child Isaac, 
when he had him circumcised the eighth da}^, and 
every Christian believer, after faithful Abraham’s 
example, must believe and act for his child when 
he has it baptized in infancy. Like the Israelitish 
mothers that believed Cod’s word to Moses, for 
their children, snat^ched them in their arms, rushed 
with them through the channel of the Red Sea, 
and had them baptized by the cloud sprinkling its 
rain-drops upon them ; so Christian parents must 
believe and act as the sponsors for their children 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


45 


in bringing them in their arms to Jesus, and 
having them baptized in his name. Will you not 
do this ? Can you have the heart to refuse such 
a command for such a service ? 

2. Baptism initiates into Christ’s Church. (John 
3 : 5.) “ Except a man be born of water and of 
the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God.” Unbaptized children are out of the Church. 
Their parents keep them out. They will not bring 
them in. They are very desirous themselves to 
be in Christ’s fold, but they leave the lambs out¬ 
side. And these lambs are their own children! 
How perverted must be their ideas of the true re¬ 
lation of their children to the Church of Christ, 
or how unnaturally cruel must be their hearts, as 
evinced by such neglect of duty to them ! Will 
you not change both your opinions and your 
conduct ? 

3. Baptism is in the place of circumcision. (Col. 
2:11, 12, 13.) An uncircumcised child was cut 
off from the Lord’s people (Gen. IL: 14), “that 
soul shall be cut off from his people.” If it was 
so with the uncircumcised child, how will it be 
with the unbaptized child ? If the soul of a child 
should suffer detriment through its parent’s guilty 
neglect, who would be willing to stand in that 
parent’s place when God will call to judgment for 
that neglect ? 


46 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


4. Baptism is a means of regeneration. It is 
directly so declared. (Titus 3 : 5.) “ The washing 
of regeneration,” (John 3 ; 5.) “Born of water 
and the spirit.” Baptism is here called the laver 
of regeneration. The child needs regeneration 
equally with the parents. It must be born of 
God—a spiritual birth as well as a natural birth. 
It must be of grace; but God’s grace is bestowed 
through the means of grace. Baptism is a means 
of grace. Are you not withholding 3 "our child 
from God’s grace, by withholding it from the 
means ? Ought you not to be desirous of em¬ 
ploying all the means and aids that God has insti¬ 
tuted in order to promote the salvation of your 
child ? If it lives and dies unregenerate through 
your neglect of the means, how will you meet it 
at the bar of God ? 

5. Baptism, like circumcision, brings the soul 
into covenant relation with God. (Gen. 17 : 10.) 
We have seen that this covenant was the covenant 
of grace, and that, therefore. Baptism does what 
circumcision did. An unbaptized child is conse¬ 
quently out of the covenant. Are j^ou willing 
that your child should be out of God’s covenant, 
and risk uncovenanted mercies? God has laid 
down a settled economy by which he will bless 
and save men; will we despise that economy, and 
place ourselves and our children outside of it. 




BAPTISM OP CHILDREN. 


4-7 


and trust in a way of salvation that has no divine 
word of promise in its favor ? 

6. Infant Baptism must be practiced, because 
the promise is to the children. (Acts 2 : 38, 39.) 
“ The promise is unto you and to your children.’’ 
Will you, by the neglect of Baptism, withhold 
your children from the blessings of the promise ? 
Will you claim those promised blessings for your¬ 
selves by your own Baptism, but will you deprive 
your children of them by refusing to have them 
baptized ? Why should you value for yourselves 
that which you despise in reference to your chil¬ 
dren ? If Baptism is a blessing to you, why is it 
not equally a blessing to them ? 

t. Baptism is really a saving ordinance; not, 
of course, as a mere opus operatum^ a mere ma¬ 
nipulation of the hands. But in God’s economy it 
is a sacrament of saving efiScacy, so says 1 Peter 
3:21. “Baptism doth also now save us.” If 
God’s grace is in it, ought not your child to be 
brought under its influence? What can justify 
you in withholding your child from this saving 
grace ? If, as this passage asserts, Baptism will 
help to save us, why should you deprive your child 
of this help ? Cyprian and the Council of Car¬ 
thage, as was seen above, said to Fidus, “We 
ought not to hinder any child from Baptism and 
the grace of Godwill you hinder your child from 


48 


BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 


the benefit of ^the grace which God will impart to 
it through Baptism ? How can you meet that 
child at the bar of God, if its soul shall receive 
injury from your neglect to use in its behalf those 
means that God has appointed for its salvation, 
and placed within your power ? 

Parents have the strongest reasons for offering 
their children for hoty Baptism. They have not 
one reason for withholding them from it. Will 
they not yield to the force of the reasons which 
we have presented in these pages, and without 
delay discharge the duty which they owe to the 
immortal souls that God has placed under their 
care? They owe it to God and his Church, to 
themselves arid their children ; and happy will we 
be if any shall be led by what we have written to 
recognize the force of these obligations. 


17 82 


1 





I 



4 





• I 


•f 




f 


* .i * 


I 


i 


« 


I'*. 













•^4 




r ■ 


V 

* * 




r 





ir^ 

i V 


-.• • 

T 




A 



1 

« . 

4i ;h'V 5, .>„ 

* •« 

1 

j.** •. '• 

‘.'d' 

t 

• \ 

• 1* 

/J’: ■.' 


.■' n 


* 

ft 




\ 


> 


I 


« 



4 I #. 

,% ’ 


> -1 


t » 

t 


^ -Ml •’ 


• -n 


»■ 








< 


j 


4 


< 






t 


I 


« 


I 


I • 


c 








» 


£ 



1 






« 




» « 



« 


♦ ' 

I 


4 


> 


t 


\ 



« 

. i 


t 






» 


\ 


* 




* • 

•• 

4 •, 


"i 


j 


V’ 


>. 


I 




4k 


< 


\ 


. • • I 


< 


t 


I 




I 



I 


r 


V 


% 


f ' 

•f-, . 



• ^ 


» 




« 






f 

I 


I 


% 

r 

I 


» 


% 


/ • 


* 


i 


L 


t 


<1 


f 


I 


I 




• I* ^ 

■f 



I 


I 


• • * 

4- 


I 


•» • 


J 




% 


% 

% 


\ 




^ 







« 


« 

« 

V 

» 



. r . 



0 


» 


•*»# 










i4 


4 


1 




















^ % 


or t ^ 

. ^ ^ /y7<L^ -r 


o • i 


’’b V*” 





^ .. 


■ ^ A^ ♦ ♦ - 


JO V*. * ^ 

❖ * <5 

‘*0-0’ .O' ^ 

. V • 



« 'Cr. o 



0° >'ae,m>^\ ,.J^ .‘-rW^-' -f* 

^ 4*^ O 







- -* 




"*-'■^'•V ‘V'- 

“ J '^vr., 

" A “"'T: *' .0^ 'o. » - A 

c ® ** ® -♦ o^ • *■ ' * -t ^o * 

• 0 • - o V 

• < * 

^ ^ ^ ^ '' 

• -v J-. % .rfWI/JS*. * ■'^ f. ^ 



JP-^;#. 






' %■ • 


* **o * 

^ aV ^ • _ _ 

'r. •' <0^ '^ '“•»’* <. '..* 

V .t».. .0-0. 




- - 


o • t 



*' ^ A^ ♦ ' 

,* '<*'% 

" <=> <* 

,0-0, "V 0^ *^o <A> , 

• o' • * ^o Y ® 







° i’® ’'’K 


■ 


« • M 


ft • • . 





A 


• A * 

V *1^^ <^ aO^ •> ’ • 

v^W.* ' 

♦'T'*.* . 0 ^ - A <. "v— 

\\ (F^J^ A -‘-^^ 



♦ y 










,. \-^^v " 

v .»i^. •I'”' > v',.*••' 

*SiiS* '^o *jAWa<* aV * 



• a)''^ -* 



, 

0 ^ o 0 ^ 

,0^ ^ v^ 9i, 4 !j *yi' 

► *■ « ^ ^ - • - ^ <i, A^ f - (^ 54 • 

. ” 

AN ' ADA 








O. 'o , » ^ \ 




'• 

<«- .. °-<' 





















































